That's ok I have time. I'll wait.To the question "Does space and time need to be made by something or someone?" You answered : "yes it kinda "needs" to have a moment of creation or nothing would exist" How is that "moment" possible? There nothing exist out of space and time, not even this "moment of creation".

How? No one knows. But it is not a free pass for you to make up fairy tales.

Now, answer all of that post that you skipped.

Logged

Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

Nope. I am not making a positive assertion about the "before" of the Big Bang. We simply do not know. You are not going to shift the burden of proof on me. You have yet to provide evidence for god's existence.

And ok, I'll find them and repost them.

Logged

Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

So I'll ask the question again. This time answer with that in mind. Does space and time need to be made by something or someone?

Does the world exist? You agree with me that space time exists.

You agreed with me that space time was not always around.

And the Big Bang theory works from the first fraction of a second, and nothing before.

But using my simply deduction skill, the one you'll twist around anyways, yes, it wasn't always around (as we agreed), now it is. Therefore, there does have to be a gap in our scientific knowledge that must be filled by that "creation" moment.

Again, no one knows the answer. I am sure as hell those ancient goat herders didn't know jack about quantum physics, so a magical god was the answer. Little did they know science would come along and blow their minds: Earth is flat? Nope. Rain comes because of a ghost dance. Nope. The entire universe revolves around us. Nope.

Same way, we are getting there. Bit by bit, piece by piece, all superstition is being stripped away. Maybe someday our children will know the answer, the true one, the one they can prove to themselves, over and over, with the same result every time.

Until then, I can only hope to contribute to our growing knowledge of astrophysics.

Logged

Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

YES the world exist. What kind of question is that?I agreed with you that NOTHING was always around. Space time being SOMETHING it's logical that it was not always around.

So... I'll ask the question again. This time answer with in mind that you said "I am not making a positive assertion about the "before" of the Big Bang. We simply do not know"Does space and time need to be made by something or someone? Please answer by YES, NO or OTHER.

God is part of everything, according to you. If nothing existed, he wouldnt exist either.

Yes since God exist.evidence.

Quote

Therefore, "He made everything when nothing existed" does not make sense.

I agree. He existed when nothing but him existed.if nothing existed, space time did not exist. If space time did not exist, god did not exist, since he can only exist in spade time.

Quote

You agreed God must exist in Space Time

Only if space time is everything (meaning that space time is God too, like a synonym or something similar). Or only if nothing exist out of space time.(since God exist he must be in space time).If space time is god, then you just admitted god was not always around (which goes against your idea of an eternal god)

Quote

and if wasn't always around, then God, who exists only in space time, cannot make space and time, since he did not exist yet.

God did not make himself. Does that help?

For the sake of argument. Let's say that God did not make space and time. What does it prove? Does space and time need to me made by something or someone?God did not make space and time, because he couldn't have existed without space and time in the first place, so you are correct in saying he didn't make it, because that would not make sense. What does it prove? That your creation story is false. "Need"? Elaborate please. If I am missing something here, tell me, but yes it kinda "needs" to have a moment of creation or nothing would exist.

Oh, and please answer my post. You answered all the insults, now please answer the actual content of it.And all of the above that you ignored, you know which ones.I will not refute your "Assertion" until you do so.

I'm sorry every-time I read these I get so angry because of the insults that I cannot read the questions that you want me to answer. Maybe If you ask them again without the insults this time?No insult here, but I'm kind of in a hurry. And I suck at quoting, but they are just up there.

Logged

Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

Don't you feel that "If there was once nothing, then there was something, then of course it needs some semblance of a beginning." and "I am not making a positive assertion about the "before" of the Big Bang. We simply do not know." Are opposing each other?How is it possible that you know that there is a something or someone outside space time (to make it begin) and at the same time knowing that there is nothing else than space time. Isn't those 2 things contradictory?

Don't you feel that "If there was once nothing, then there was something, then of course it needs some semblance of a beginning." and "I am not making a positive assertion about the "before" of the Big Bang. We simply do not know." Are opposing each other?How is it possible that you know that there is a something or someone outside space time (to make it begin) and at the same time knowing that there is nothing else than space time. Isn't those 2 things contradictory?

About the quote, I don't see any question in there.

Nope. They are not.

One says that according to nature, if there is nothing, then there is something, something happened in between to bring it about. The other one says we dont exactly know what it was that did that, you disagree?

Your turn.

(And this is also the question I talked about)

Evidence, please.

« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 07:51:47 PM by Defiance »

Logged

Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

Evidence about what? The existence of God? If so that is what I am getting at. Once we cleared this before big bang that is and is not at the same time.

I disagree. Nothing can exist Before the Big bang, not even this "before" since nothing exist out of space and time and before the big bang there was no space and time i.e. nothing existed before the big bang not even this "before". I agree that everything has a cause but since your definition of EXIST exclude all things before the big bang, the big bang has no cause. It is the exception to the rule.For you, is it possible for the "before" of the Big Bang to exist since nothing exist out of space and time?

You don't seem to be getting it. No one, no one knows of the "before". All they can do is gather evidence (the one you seem to lack), and make a theory that fits the observations they gathered, as closely as possible.

For me, you ask? I go with science. It doesn't know what went down in the "before", therefore neither do I.

I am not the one claiming the exact cause of the Big Bang, you are. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you.

And I repeat, evidence, please.

« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:15:29 PM by Defiance »

Logged

Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

Well that's the question isn't it?What I'm trying desperately here is to help you realize that there MUST exist something that doesn't have a cause. That has never "not existed" if not, reason is impossible.something that, contrary of what you rhink , was always around. To make you realize such a thing I attempted to follow your reasoning up to the point where it doesn't make sense anymore. So do you admit that something must have "always been around" or shall I continue to make you say things that contradict each other?

Well that's the question isn't it?What I'm trying desperately here is to help you realize that there MUST exist something that doesn't have a cause. That has never "not existed" if not, reason is impossible.something that, contrary of what you rhink , was always around. To make you realize such a thing I attempted to follow your reasoning up to the point where it doesn't make sense anymore. So do you admit that something must have "always been around" or shall I continue to make you say things that contradict each other?

Read above, edits.

Logged

Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

I'm not claiming the exact cause of the big bang. I'm claiming that there is something that has always been around and that this thing is named God. You can give it any synonym if you want but it exist.

I'm not claiming the exact cause of the big bang. I'm claiming that there is something that has always been around and that this thing is named God. You can give it any synonym if you want but it exist.

Evidence, please. Connect it concretely, since you seem to be one step ahead of physics and science, go ahead, tell us how something could exist before existence was allowed. Evidence, please, you know how difficult peer reviewers can be.

Logged

Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

Let me copy paste the evidence, you seem to have Skipp it :" What I'm trying desperately here is to help you realize that there MUST exist something that doesn't have a cause. That has never "not existed" if not, reason is impossible.something that, contrary of what you rhink , was always around. To make you realize such a thing I attempted to follow your reasoning up to the point where it doesn't make sense anymore. So do you admit that something must have "always been around" or shall I continue to make you say things that contradict each other?"

Let me copy paste the evidence, you seem to have Skipp it :" What I'm trying desperately here is to help you realize that there MUST exist something that doesn't have a cause. That has never "not existed" if not, reason is impossible.something that, contrary of what you rhink , was always around. To make you realize such a thing I attempted to follow your reasoning up to the point where it doesn't make sense anymore. So do you admit that something must have "always been around" or shall I continue to make you say things that contradict each other?"

You forgot to include evidence.

Logged

Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

What I'm trying desperately here is to help you realize that there MUST exist something that doesn't have a cause. That has never "not existed" if not, reason is impossible.something that, contrary of what you rhink , was always around. To make you realize such a thing I attempted to follow your reasoning up to the point where it doesn't make sense anymore. So do you admit that something must have "always been around" or shall I continue to make you say things that contradict each other?

What I'm trying desperately here is to help you realize that there MUST exist something that doesn't have a cause. That has never "not existed" if not, reason is impossible.something that, contrary of what you rhink , was always around. To make you realize such a thing I attempted to follow your reasoning up to the point where it doesn't make sense anymore. So do you admit that something must have "always been around" or shall I continue to make you say things that contradict each other?

No, you are mistaken. My logic is intact. I've admitted all the gaps that science must fill, and it is you, who has yet to provide evidence that your God can exist outside of space time.

Logged

Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

YOU are the evidence I bring. Your own logic.When I follow your logic there comes a time when you cannot keep saying that there was nothing before the big bang. Or in other words that there was nothing before the beginning of existence. BUT, at the same time YOU say that there must be something that caused the big bang (even if you don't know what) and that contradict the first premise. I must conclude that one of your two premise must be false.So, I'm asking you, which one?

YOU are the evidence I bring. Your own logic.When I follow your logic there comes a time when you cannot keep saying that there was nothing before the big bang. Or in other words that there was nothing before the beginning of existence. BUT, at the same time YOU say that there must be something that caused the big bang (even if you don't know what) and that contradict the first premise. I must conclude that one of your two premise must be false.So, I'm asking you, which one?

No it does not have flaws. YOU are the one claiming your god defies my logic. Evidence, please, that your god could exist counter to my logic.

Logged

Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

Yes:If there was once nothing, then there was something, then of course it needs some semblance of a beginning.

You were talking about the big bang.

And where did I make a positive claim that wasn't just purely logic thinking?

Did I say what the beginning it? Did I say how it worked? Did I say where or not the beginning was made out of cake?

I've stated before. We don't know, no one, what the actual beginning was. We can clearly trace back the evidence and observation back to a point where all matter seems to converge at a single point. Therefore we theorised (look up Scientific Theory) that because of this, it must have had some sort of a beginning from which matter was thrown in all directions.

No one said what exactly it was. Except the religious loonies who take advantage of this gap in our knowledge and fill it with unsubstantiated claims.

YOU are making a positive claim that your god was what made the universe.

Therefore, burden of proof lies on you. Evidence, please.

Logged

Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.